Posted on 06/28/2006 6:35:36 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
I do not believe weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people are within the purview of the protection of Second Amendment.
Bayh will not be the Dem nominee .
"Stevio, I never said it was about hunting; at the same time, I did not say it was about the right to carry weapons that are specifically designed to kill people."
Hunting was a given back in that day . The SA has absolutely nothing to do with hunting . It is absolutely about self defense and protection against tyranny .
True Assault Weapons are already highly regulated by the Feds . When you hear the words " Assault Weapon ", please understand that it is another Liberal anti-gun propaganda catch phrase invented to advance the erosion of our SA rights . If the Liberals could get away with it, they would call a BB gun an " Assault Weapon " . They will never stop .
So please study the details of this issue before repeating Liberal anti-gun talking points .
The gun issue is a true marker on where a politician stands regarding personal freedom and true Conservatism .
I like Romney , but if he is not right on the gun issue , he won't win the primary .
Yeah, well if someone calls a quorum call then the legislature can call in the Sergeant of arms and the state troopers to arrest the legislators who have abandoned their duty, and compel them to attend the session.
great post
I don't think you undersatand; the man is at heart moderate conservative. Romney has only gone to the right in the last year in an effort to pique interest in his candidacy. It is a sham.
Its not like some brand new Republican no one has ever heard of is going to emerge in the next year. I'd rather have Romney or Giuliani than Allen or McCain.
I bet Warner.
He got his clock cleaned by kennedy in those 1994 debates.
When excrement hits the fan romney will veer left to try and get elected or abandon his principles ala bill clinton just to win/get political traction. THAT is the problem and that is why we don't care much for candidates who 'had to run a certain way' in one state.
Lol, you'd pick the two most liberal of those 4 to be our nominee. Nice to see where you stand.
Liberal on social issues, yes. But I'd rather have someone who will cut the budget and conduct the War on Terrorism like it should than someone who prattles on about abortion and the ever-so-important flag burning problem. If you can name a social conservative who would focus on the important stuff, let me know.
George Allen, John Mccain, Mark Sanford, Mike Pence, Tim Pawlenty to name a few.
"George Allen, John Mccain, Mark Sanford, Mike Pence, Tim Pawlenty to name a few."
McCain !? LOL , nice to see where you stand ....
Oh, FWIW, Allen would get shredded in the debates....
Nice try but allen has performed wonderfully in both debates he particpated in, his first one for governor in 1993 and his one against chucky robb. For governor it helped give him the momentum to overcome mary sue terry's 30 point lead and he eventually won with a 19 point lead of his own. He also beat back chuck robb.
Saying he would get obliterated is just flat out lying and shows your nothing more than a romney humper who can't see there are other viable candidates out there.
Romney got his clock cleaned in the 1994 debates, go watch it yourself and read the reports. He spent the vast majority of the debates playing "mee too" with ted kennedy and most of his attacks on kennedy fell flat, and kennedy isnt exactly a superb debater himself.
And for the record i will never vote for john mccain, not for nominee, not for president but that doesnt mean i'm not capable of being objective about him, unlike you with regards to all other candidates but romney.
“Our elected representatives in the Legislature will soon hold a historic vote. It regards the institution of marriage.
But it will not be a vote for or against same sex marriage.
No, it will be a vote for or against democracy.
The people here today have followed the law, followed the process established in the Constitution, and gathered an astounding 170,000 signatures. Their effort means that the people, the citizens, will be free to choose how marriage is defined in Massachusetts.
This is democracy pure and simple.
Of course, democracy can be squashed. Only one fourth of the legislators must vote for democracy, for this question, this choice, to be given to the people. But it is conceivable that some will try to block a vote by the people by blocking a vote of the legislature.
We here are speaking for democracy and the rule of the law. Whether you agree that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman or not, surely you can agree that the course of democracy, established by the Constitution, must be followed. Is there anything more fundamental to this Commonwealth and this country than the principle that power is reserved to the people, that government is the servant, not the master?
We ask for one thing: the constitutionally prescribed vote of the Legislature. Let the people speak.”
Well, that just about settles it. At heart, Mitt Romney is a Democrat.
I wouldn't. The man obviously is unsuited for national office. He thinks that our Constitution established a democracy.
Blahblahblah.
He can hold his own and it will be proven in the debates . He will emerge as a true contender in '08 .
No he won't. The GOP is a prolife party, and Mitt Romney is a phony when it comes to the fundamental God-given right for babies to live.
I can see a future for you doing standup...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.